kbsyed61
03-30 01:53 PM
There was another LUD for all three of us (Self, Wife and daughter). Also received a CRIS email for wife with an RFE. I hope this RFE is about her incomplete vaccination at the time of filing. Will post the RFE details when I receive them from attorney.
I have not done anything like applying for EAD, AP etc.
I have not done anything like applying for EAD, AP etc.
wallpaper Question mark on a sheet of
boreal
08-25 12:02 PM
I am with the same employer who sponsored GC. Until GC was approved I was with H1B visa. Is it neccessary for me to file I-9 after GC?
Yes. They would need GC copy and they would update their records.
Yes. They would need GC copy and they would update their records.
syzygy
01-31 02:56 AM
its at 20, lets move it to top 5!
done!!
done!!
2011 HouseQuestionMark
skg007
08-18 01:00 PM
What about people who did not file AC21. How do they prepare for Citizenship? Do they need to go back to the previous employer.:confused:
more...
gc_chahiye
11-01 02:14 PM
Any idea why it's important for the attorneys to notify USCIS that I'm no longer a H worker? The petition would expire next March anyway...
Its a USCIS regulation (8 CFR 214 2 (h) 11) that your employer/lawyers are following, which requires informing USCIS if you are no longer working in H1B status for any reason (got a GC, layoff etc):
(11) Revocation of approval of petition--
(i) General.
(A) The petitioner shall immediately notify the Service of any changes in the terms and conditions of employment of a beneficiary which may affect eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(H) of the Act and paragraph (h) of this section. An amended petition on Form I-129 should be filed when the petitioner continues to employ the beneficiary. If the petitioner no longer employs the beneficiary, the petitioner shall send a letter explaining the change(s) to the director who approved the petition.
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid|SLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination|8cfrsec2142h11&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-12391
If that link does not work you can find the CFR here:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cab75104b7d73e7b6bca9c886cc72 455
and dig through to the regulation.
Its a USCIS regulation (8 CFR 214 2 (h) 11) that your employer/lawyers are following, which requires informing USCIS if you are no longer working in H1B status for any reason (got a GC, layoff etc):
(11) Revocation of approval of petition--
(i) General.
(A) The petitioner shall immediately notify the Service of any changes in the terms and conditions of employment of a beneficiary which may affect eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(H) of the Act and paragraph (h) of this section. An amended petition on Form I-129 should be filed when the petitioner continues to employ the beneficiary. If the petitioner no longer employs the beneficiary, the petitioner shall send a letter explaining the change(s) to the director who approved the petition.
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid|SLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination|8cfrsec2142h11&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-12391
If that link does not work you can find the CFR here:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cab75104b7d73e7b6bca9c886cc72 455
and dig through to the regulation.
Leo07
07-16 07:55 PM
I thought this bill has been introduced before?
more...
vsrinir
09-17 12:07 PM
I guess after this step "it has to go to Rules Committee and await determinations by the Rules Committee as to how much debate will be allowed and whether floor amendments will be allowed, and if so , how many.
"
Just for the clarification of some of our friends (corrections are welcome) -
The current discussion is in the House Judiciary Committee. After this, the major steps for the bill will be to go through the House and Senate for discussions and voting.
There is still a long way to go, but sure this is an important milestone to pass the Judiciary Committee.
And it might not even be possible to get it to the House before the Pres elections. But the good thing is it will not have to go through the Judiciary commitee again.
Just wanted to state it for the benefit of the people who are not aware, as we are not building hopes that it will be all over today or in the next few days.
"
Just for the clarification of some of our friends (corrections are welcome) -
The current discussion is in the House Judiciary Committee. After this, the major steps for the bill will be to go through the House and Senate for discussions and voting.
There is still a long way to go, but sure this is an important milestone to pass the Judiciary Committee.
And it might not even be possible to get it to the House before the Pres elections. But the good thing is it will not have to go through the Judiciary commitee again.
Just wanted to state it for the benefit of the people who are not aware, as we are not building hopes that it will be all over today or in the next few days.
2010 sign with question mark in
satyasaich
01-29 08:49 PM
What you said was absolutely correct. However most of the times the delays caused in big companies are due to various layers of communications as well as approvals.
I'm a live example of how i lost the opportunity to file 485 before Dec31/2004 for EB3 category, just because of unnecessary (so called) procedural delays
NOw, this new rule in place will certainly prompt for good changes in the big companies if they truly want to sponser GC
Yes, they must act in a timely manner. one way to do is HR should get all the necessary approvals from managers / directors so that they don't lose time. Secondly my observation is there is always a substanial delay at Attorney's office(few exceptions are there) to prepare the paperwork.
I dont think companies are really geared to file for 140 within 45 days of labor approval.
Most of the companies take 4-6 weeks to just send the documents the lawyers request for filing 140. Then the lawyers, most likely forget something and request more documents. It takes another 2 weeks for company to send those.
All in all, on average I think companies need 3 months after approved labor to be ready to Fedex that 140 petition. No malicious intent on the part of employer, its just how things are. 45 days is going to make things difficult for many companies and many of the lazy, slow, procrastinating law firms.
I'm a live example of how i lost the opportunity to file 485 before Dec31/2004 for EB3 category, just because of unnecessary (so called) procedural delays
NOw, this new rule in place will certainly prompt for good changes in the big companies if they truly want to sponser GC
Yes, they must act in a timely manner. one way to do is HR should get all the necessary approvals from managers / directors so that they don't lose time. Secondly my observation is there is always a substanial delay at Attorney's office(few exceptions are there) to prepare the paperwork.
I dont think companies are really geared to file for 140 within 45 days of labor approval.
Most of the companies take 4-6 weeks to just send the documents the lawyers request for filing 140. Then the lawyers, most likely forget something and request more documents. It takes another 2 weeks for company to send those.
All in all, on average I think companies need 3 months after approved labor to be ready to Fedex that 140 petition. No malicious intent on the part of employer, its just how things are. 45 days is going to make things difficult for many companies and many of the lazy, slow, procrastinating law firms.
more...
nixstor
06-03 11:22 AM
Great find.
We need to get more support from the right/republican side. Please call the republican members.
We need to get more support from the right/republican side. Please call the republican members.
hair (question mark face
prinive
03-13 10:37 AM
Thanks ... Yes I guess so...
Good luck - Guess u r through
Good luck - Guess u r through
more...
amitjoey
02-01 01:55 PM
What is IV's position on more H1Bs?
IV does not support, nor oppose H1-increase as far as I know, that is not on the agenda at all. IV was formed by and for EB -applicants to ease some of the hardships faced by the EB Community and to end the visa-number unavailability and retrogression.
IV does not support, nor oppose H1-increase as far as I know, that is not on the agenda at all. IV was formed by and for EB -applicants to ease some of the hardships faced by the EB Community and to end the visa-number unavailability and retrogression.
hot the question mark face?
blue_line
07-15 05:41 PM
in the past lou also made comments that h-1 bs don't pay taxes... which we know is far from truth.
you should inlcude this in the petition
you should inlcude this in the petition
more...
house is a question mark and not
willigetagc
08-26 12:26 PM
Why cannot they just say it?. Why can’t they say that it will take 2 days to 22 days or 222 days to transfer the amount?, if someone needs to send money due to an emergency, they do it thinking that the money will be transferred in two or three days, a week maybe…
Beats me! I don't know why they (the indians) do that. They make agressive promises and then fail to meet them. They should adopt the US business style of promising results in 5-7 business days and then deliver in 3-4 days. It then becomes the customer's headache to plan accordingly and they (the customers) are in fact delighted to get the work done in 3-4 days.
(Never mind the fact that the work would actually take them less than 1-2 bus day ;))
Beats me! I don't know why they (the indians) do that. They make agressive promises and then fail to meet them. They should adopt the US business style of promising results in 5-7 business days and then deliver in 3-4 days. It then becomes the customer's headache to plan accordingly and they (the customers) are in fact delighted to get the work done in 3-4 days.
(Never mind the fact that the work would actually take them less than 1-2 bus day ;))
tattoo the question mark face?
smisachu
08-01 05:34 PM
Hi smisachu,
Could you explain what you mean by this? Are you referring to "Flash Trading"
or the whole of HFT?
Yes Flash trading, ELP (enhanced liquidity program), direct access trading and even other program trading. The programs seek out discreet blocks that are being routed into the market and front run them. The main culprit according to many is GS. And to acheive a significant alpha the size and leverage are huge. Some program with a bug will dump a lot of shares on the market some day and before any one can react. Here is an article on some info that was made available only to bloomberg users.
"Lime Brokerage: "The Next 'Long Term Capital' Meltdown Will Happen In
A Five-Minute Time Period."
Posted by Tyler Durden at 11:25 AM
A recent Bloomberg piece that for some reason was made available only
to terminal subscribers, provides a very interesting discussion on the
dangers of sponsored access, how the associated pre-trade vs post-
trade monitoring deliberations by "regulators" will influence short
selling curbs, and not surprisingly, the desire by Goldman to not only
dominate this yet another aspect of high-frequency trading, but to
dictate market policy at will.
What is sponsored access:
In sponsored access, a broker-dealer lends its market participation
identification (MPID) number to clients for them to trade on exchanges
without going through the broker's trading system, to avoid slowing
down the execution. That places responsibility on the broker-dealer to
make sure the participant abides by securities regulations, and that
its trading, which can involve hundreds or thousands of orders a
second, does not run amok.
Is it thus surprising, that none other than Goldman Sachs is muscling
its way into providing not only a sponsored access platform to its
clients, but a new form of sponsored access that needs the blessing of
regulators:
Wall Street heavyweight Goldman Sachs, now launching its own sponsored-
access service to lend clients its identification to access securities
exchanges directly, said last week it favors monitoring client orders
prior to execution.
"Our view is that there is a real need for pre-trade checks in the use
of sponsored access to fulfill [broker-dealers'] regulatory
responsibilities," said Greg Tusar, managing director at Goldman.
Goldman's stand in favor of pre-trade instead of post-trade monitoring
of sponsored clients' activity is one side of a debate in which
regulators may choose a middle ground. The regulators' decision on how
to monitor sponsored access may also influence their deliberations on
restricting short sales.
What is the difference between pre-trade and post-trade monitoring? In
brief:
Pre-trade
Compliant with Reg SHO
Nip problems before they happen
View activity across exchanges
Post-trade
Faster order executions
Pre-trade systems still fallible
And another tidbit:
In traditional sponsored-access arrangements, a broker-dealer
determines a client's suitability to access market centers directly
and then allows the client to trade without monitoring its individual
orders prior to execution.
In other words, the Goldman endorsed pre-trade approach will allow
"monitoring of individual orders prior to execution." Whether or not
pre-trade checks provide the capacity to observe not just wholesale
exchange activity in the context of sponsored access but from a much
broader market angle is a discussion for another time, although this
could be one place where Sergey Aleynikov could shed an infinite
amount of light, especially as pertains to Goldman's sponsored-access
service. Conveniently, his gag order will prevent him from saying much
if anything until such time as there is an appetizing settlement to
keep him gagged in perpetuity. The bottom line is that with a pre-
trade environment, the sponsored access providers will be able to have
the potential to front run all those who use their platforms. The
residual question of how far they go to comply with regulations to
prevent this from happening, and remain true to their ethics standards
is also a topic for another day.
Going back to the topic at hand. Here is why sponsored access could
easily be quite a bother to capital markets sooner rather than later:
Unchecked errors or unintended repeat orders could deplete broker-
dealers' capital, and potentially wreak havoc in the broader market.
Concerns have arisen, however, about whether all broker-dealers are
able to fulfill that duty in today's electronic trading environment,
and according to which standards.
And here Goldman chimes in to not only promote their proposed
architecture but to expound on the virtues of pre-trade checking.
"In the case of high-frequency trading, in particular guarding against
technology failures, oversized orders and other situations where
there's potentially systemic market impact, we believe strongly that
pre-trade checks are a prerequisite," Tusar says.
Nasdaq's proposal as well as Securities and Exchange Commission
officials' speeches a few months ago appeared to lean toward
bolstering the traditional approach.
"We don't believe that's strong enough or what the regulators want
now, because of the potentially dire consequences, and because we-as
broker-dealers-bear much of that risk," Tusar says.
Now the reason why this is very relevant in the context of not just
potential front running, but also market structure is that Regulation
SHO, which is the primary regulatory framework for short selling (and
the purvey of potential Uptick Rule reinstatement, which will happen
once the market is allowed to hit a bid) is a post-trade
architecture.
Wedbush [Morgan] routinely tests clients' systems to ensure they are
compliant with Reg SHO. In addition, he says, the brokerage sets
limits on clients available locates-as well as credit and trading
limits--before the start of each trading day that its system tracks,
prohibiting shorts without locates and providing a type of pre-trade
check.
Or as has recently become the case, seeing rolling buy ins in the
middle of the day as borrowable shares in even the most liquid stocks
mysteriously disappear (look at today's market action for yet another
blatant example of this practice).
Anticipating the regulators' likely response, one should not be
surprised to see them siding with Goldman and against shorters:
As the SEC also seeks to appease investor concerns over rampant short
selling, especially naked short selling, new sponsored-access
standards may provide part of the solution. Given that day-traders may
be the last remaining culprits of such activity,, increasing and
standardizing scrutiny over their trading may reduce uncovered (and
illegal) shorts even further.
How about appeasing concerns over rampant, unjustified buying? When
will the downtick buy rule be implemented? But we jest.
And I digress again. Why should all this be concerning to advocates of
stability of high-frequency trading:
The mother of all concerns is a sponsored firm's algorithm going awry
and executing thousands of problematic trades across a range of
securities and market centers.
Well, this is not really a problem when it happens to the upside as
has been the case for months now - it is only a threat when Joe
Sixpack's 401(k) may be impacted, i.e., to the downside.
And here is where a SEC Comment submitted by broker Lime Brokerage is
a very troubling must read by all who naively claim that High-
frequency trading is a boon to an efficient market (which doesn't
provide . Well, yes and no - it is, until such moment that it causes
the market to, literally, break. I will post a critical excerpt from
the Lime submission, and leave the rest to our readers' independent
analysis:
Lime's familiarity with high speed trading allows us to benchmark some
of the fastest computer traders on the planet, and we have seen CDT
(Computerized Day Trading) order placement rates easily exceed 1,000
orders per second. Should a CDT algorithm go awry, where a large
amount of orders are placed erroneously or where the orders should not
have passed order validation, the Sponsor will incur a substantial
timelag in addressing the issue. From the moment the Sponsor�s
representative detects the problem until the time the problematic
orders can be addressed by the Sponsor, at least two mintues will have
passed. The Sponsor�s only tools to control Sponsored Access flow are
to log into the Trading Center�s website (if available), place a phone
call to the Trading Center, or call the Sponsee to disable trading and
cancel these erroneous orders � all sub-optimal processes which
require human intervention. With a two minute delay to cancel these
erroneous orders, 120,000 orders could have gone into the market and
been executed, even though an order validation problem was detected
previously. At 1,000 shares per order and an average price of $20 per
share, $2.4 billion of improper trades could be executed in this short
timeframe. The sheer volume of activity in a concentrated period of
time is extremely disruptive to the process of maintaining a �fair and
orderly� market. This shortcoming needs to be addressed if the
practice of Naked Access is going to be permitted to continue;
otherwise, the next �Long Term Capital� meltdown will happen in a five-
minute time period.
Could you explain what you mean by this? Are you referring to "Flash Trading"
or the whole of HFT?
Yes Flash trading, ELP (enhanced liquidity program), direct access trading and even other program trading. The programs seek out discreet blocks that are being routed into the market and front run them. The main culprit according to many is GS. And to acheive a significant alpha the size and leverage are huge. Some program with a bug will dump a lot of shares on the market some day and before any one can react. Here is an article on some info that was made available only to bloomberg users.
"Lime Brokerage: "The Next 'Long Term Capital' Meltdown Will Happen In
A Five-Minute Time Period."
Posted by Tyler Durden at 11:25 AM
A recent Bloomberg piece that for some reason was made available only
to terminal subscribers, provides a very interesting discussion on the
dangers of sponsored access, how the associated pre-trade vs post-
trade monitoring deliberations by "regulators" will influence short
selling curbs, and not surprisingly, the desire by Goldman to not only
dominate this yet another aspect of high-frequency trading, but to
dictate market policy at will.
What is sponsored access:
In sponsored access, a broker-dealer lends its market participation
identification (MPID) number to clients for them to trade on exchanges
without going through the broker's trading system, to avoid slowing
down the execution. That places responsibility on the broker-dealer to
make sure the participant abides by securities regulations, and that
its trading, which can involve hundreds or thousands of orders a
second, does not run amok.
Is it thus surprising, that none other than Goldman Sachs is muscling
its way into providing not only a sponsored access platform to its
clients, but a new form of sponsored access that needs the blessing of
regulators:
Wall Street heavyweight Goldman Sachs, now launching its own sponsored-
access service to lend clients its identification to access securities
exchanges directly, said last week it favors monitoring client orders
prior to execution.
"Our view is that there is a real need for pre-trade checks in the use
of sponsored access to fulfill [broker-dealers'] regulatory
responsibilities," said Greg Tusar, managing director at Goldman.
Goldman's stand in favor of pre-trade instead of post-trade monitoring
of sponsored clients' activity is one side of a debate in which
regulators may choose a middle ground. The regulators' decision on how
to monitor sponsored access may also influence their deliberations on
restricting short sales.
What is the difference between pre-trade and post-trade monitoring? In
brief:
Pre-trade
Compliant with Reg SHO
Nip problems before they happen
View activity across exchanges
Post-trade
Faster order executions
Pre-trade systems still fallible
And another tidbit:
In traditional sponsored-access arrangements, a broker-dealer
determines a client's suitability to access market centers directly
and then allows the client to trade without monitoring its individual
orders prior to execution.
In other words, the Goldman endorsed pre-trade approach will allow
"monitoring of individual orders prior to execution." Whether or not
pre-trade checks provide the capacity to observe not just wholesale
exchange activity in the context of sponsored access but from a much
broader market angle is a discussion for another time, although this
could be one place where Sergey Aleynikov could shed an infinite
amount of light, especially as pertains to Goldman's sponsored-access
service. Conveniently, his gag order will prevent him from saying much
if anything until such time as there is an appetizing settlement to
keep him gagged in perpetuity. The bottom line is that with a pre-
trade environment, the sponsored access providers will be able to have
the potential to front run all those who use their platforms. The
residual question of how far they go to comply with regulations to
prevent this from happening, and remain true to their ethics standards
is also a topic for another day.
Going back to the topic at hand. Here is why sponsored access could
easily be quite a bother to capital markets sooner rather than later:
Unchecked errors or unintended repeat orders could deplete broker-
dealers' capital, and potentially wreak havoc in the broader market.
Concerns have arisen, however, about whether all broker-dealers are
able to fulfill that duty in today's electronic trading environment,
and according to which standards.
And here Goldman chimes in to not only promote their proposed
architecture but to expound on the virtues of pre-trade checking.
"In the case of high-frequency trading, in particular guarding against
technology failures, oversized orders and other situations where
there's potentially systemic market impact, we believe strongly that
pre-trade checks are a prerequisite," Tusar says.
Nasdaq's proposal as well as Securities and Exchange Commission
officials' speeches a few months ago appeared to lean toward
bolstering the traditional approach.
"We don't believe that's strong enough or what the regulators want
now, because of the potentially dire consequences, and because we-as
broker-dealers-bear much of that risk," Tusar says.
Now the reason why this is very relevant in the context of not just
potential front running, but also market structure is that Regulation
SHO, which is the primary regulatory framework for short selling (and
the purvey of potential Uptick Rule reinstatement, which will happen
once the market is allowed to hit a bid) is a post-trade
architecture.
Wedbush [Morgan] routinely tests clients' systems to ensure they are
compliant with Reg SHO. In addition, he says, the brokerage sets
limits on clients available locates-as well as credit and trading
limits--before the start of each trading day that its system tracks,
prohibiting shorts without locates and providing a type of pre-trade
check.
Or as has recently become the case, seeing rolling buy ins in the
middle of the day as borrowable shares in even the most liquid stocks
mysteriously disappear (look at today's market action for yet another
blatant example of this practice).
Anticipating the regulators' likely response, one should not be
surprised to see them siding with Goldman and against shorters:
As the SEC also seeks to appease investor concerns over rampant short
selling, especially naked short selling, new sponsored-access
standards may provide part of the solution. Given that day-traders may
be the last remaining culprits of such activity,, increasing and
standardizing scrutiny over their trading may reduce uncovered (and
illegal) shorts even further.
How about appeasing concerns over rampant, unjustified buying? When
will the downtick buy rule be implemented? But we jest.
And I digress again. Why should all this be concerning to advocates of
stability of high-frequency trading:
The mother of all concerns is a sponsored firm's algorithm going awry
and executing thousands of problematic trades across a range of
securities and market centers.
Well, this is not really a problem when it happens to the upside as
has been the case for months now - it is only a threat when Joe
Sixpack's 401(k) may be impacted, i.e., to the downside.
And here is where a SEC Comment submitted by broker Lime Brokerage is
a very troubling must read by all who naively claim that High-
frequency trading is a boon to an efficient market (which doesn't
provide . Well, yes and no - it is, until such moment that it causes
the market to, literally, break. I will post a critical excerpt from
the Lime submission, and leave the rest to our readers' independent
analysis:
Lime's familiarity with high speed trading allows us to benchmark some
of the fastest computer traders on the planet, and we have seen CDT
(Computerized Day Trading) order placement rates easily exceed 1,000
orders per second. Should a CDT algorithm go awry, where a large
amount of orders are placed erroneously or where the orders should not
have passed order validation, the Sponsor will incur a substantial
timelag in addressing the issue. From the moment the Sponsor�s
representative detects the problem until the time the problematic
orders can be addressed by the Sponsor, at least two mintues will have
passed. The Sponsor�s only tools to control Sponsored Access flow are
to log into the Trading Center�s website (if available), place a phone
call to the Trading Center, or call the Sponsee to disable trading and
cancel these erroneous orders � all sub-optimal processes which
require human intervention. With a two minute delay to cancel these
erroneous orders, 120,000 orders could have gone into the market and
been executed, even though an order validation problem was detected
previously. At 1,000 shares per order and an average price of $20 per
share, $2.4 billion of improper trades could be executed in this short
timeframe. The sheer volume of activity in a concentrated period of
time is extremely disruptive to the process of maintaining a �fair and
orderly� market. This shortcoming needs to be addressed if the
practice of Naked Access is going to be permitted to continue;
otherwise, the next �Long Term Capital� meltdown will happen in a five-
minute time period.
more...
pictures I#39;m a question mark face!
junkoo
03-09 02:19 PM
i agree with ash0210...there is a lot of "money" discussion going on lately.
The idea should be to convert thus-far-non-contributors to contributors - not to make closed forums - you wont expand the market that way. The 3 month trial idea is a good one - but people will find ways to abuse it also.
PS: I am a monthly contributor.
The idea should be to convert thus-far-non-contributors to contributors - not to make closed forums - you wont expand the market that way. The 3 month trial idea is a good one - but people will find ways to abuse it also.
PS: I am a monthly contributor.
dresses hats question mark face
natrajs
03-16 11:52 PM
Hey,
I have Bachelor's computer's 3 years and MCA 2 years from IGNOU. I have over 7 years of Exp excluding frm my current company. Is EB2 possible in my case. My employer says its not cause of my education, can anybody let me know if they have done EB2 with this scenario. Appreciate your time. Thanks
12 + 4 ( Education) + 5 Years progressive experiece qualify for EB2, you have 12+3+2 ( Education) + 7 Years - Yes you qualify for the EB2, However your job description should qualify for a EB2 position, consult a Attorney
I have Bachelor's computer's 3 years and MCA 2 years from IGNOU. I have over 7 years of Exp excluding frm my current company. Is EB2 possible in my case. My employer says its not cause of my education, can anybody let me know if they have done EB2 with this scenario. Appreciate your time. Thanks
12 + 4 ( Education) + 5 Years progressive experiece qualify for EB2, you have 12+3+2 ( Education) + 7 Years - Yes you qualify for the EB2, However your job description should qualify for a EB2 position, consult a Attorney
more...
makeup Question mark over face poses
la_guy
04-08 07:40 PM
hi kvranand / nik.patelc,
same thing happened with my wife's case too, RFE status change on 4/3 and then again a soft lud on 4/6 on my wife and soft lud on mine on 4/7 ... no status change... can you guys let me know once you receive the hard copy... i will update once i receive it...so far havent received and waiting for it...as we have only 30 days to respond...
same thing happened with my wife's case too, RFE status change on 4/3 and then again a soft lud on 4/6 on my wife and soft lud on mine on 4/7 ... no status change... can you guys let me know once you receive the hard copy... i will update once i receive it...so far havent received and waiting for it...as we have only 30 days to respond...
girlfriend Question Marks by Prawny
hrushi_j
09-17 12:48 PM
7y 10n
AMENDMENT FAILED
AMENDMENT FAILED
hairstyles my question mark face
pappu
10-11 10:28 AM
Namechecks:
IV will be soon posting some updates on this. We have done some ground work on this issue in the recent past and have got positive response. Stronger support from our members, will definitely help us push this agenda item. IV feels that this issue is going to be a big roadblock for a lot of us now, after people have filed their I485s. It is possible to get a much wider bi-partisan support on this issue by us and we are already pursuing it.
Pls. stay tuned on this issue.
================
Update
Oct 22. 2007
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=81&Itemid=61
IV will be soon posting some updates on this. We have done some ground work on this issue in the recent past and have got positive response. Stronger support from our members, will definitely help us push this agenda item. IV feels that this issue is going to be a big roadblock for a lot of us now, after people have filed their I485s. It is possible to get a much wider bi-partisan support on this issue by us and we are already pursuing it.
Pls. stay tuned on this issue.
================
Update
Oct 22. 2007
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=81&Itemid=61
bkarnik
09-17 11:29 AM
Seems like they are discussing about Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey
Nope...they are talking about impeaching a US District Judge. This should be very fast.
Nope...they are talking about impeaching a US District Judge. This should be very fast.
kc_p21
12-06 09:17 PM
We should send at least 100 emails via change.gov to Mr. Obama's team on Legal Immigration.
http://change.gov/page/s/immigration
Please urge new administration to support three bills by Joe Lofgren: HR 5882, HR 5921 & HR 6039 . This will be very helpful.
1. log on to change.gov, create your profile (use a legal email addresss)
2. go to http://change.gov/page/content/openf...tions20081229/
input "legal immigration" and hit search questions and vote for all legal immigration questions
3. You can also post your own question
http://change.gov/page/s/immigration
Please urge new administration to support three bills by Joe Lofgren: HR 5882, HR 5921 & HR 6039 . This will be very helpful.
1. log on to change.gov, create your profile (use a legal email addresss)
2. go to http://change.gov/page/content/openf...tions20081229/
input "legal immigration" and hit search questions and vote for all legal immigration questions
3. You can also post your own question
No comments:
Post a Comment